Children’s rights in Taiwan: A qualitative study on social workers’ perspectives

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of social workers in Taiwan on children’s rights. Among the 94 social workers who were interviewed, most were familiar with children’s rights terminology. From the results of this study, parental needs and the inability of young children to communicate effectively hindered the balance between protection of and participation by children. To better implement children’s rights, social workers should gain a deeper understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and develop skills for communicating well with children and parents.

Keywords

Child welfare children’s rights qualitative study social workers Taiwan

Introduction

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is one of the most recognised and accepted international conventions on children’s rights (Tisdall, 2015). The international community generally agrees that children’s rights should be implemented via the 3Ps: provision, protection and participation (Heimer and Palme, 2016; Heimer et al., 2018). Article 19 of the UNCRC emphasises the right to protection from violence, abuse and neglect. Moreover, the rights to participation and expression of views are indicated in Article 12 (Jarosz, 2016). Despite the fact that the UNCRC tries to balance protection and participation, children’s opinions and choices are often ignored and adult authority figures, such as parents, determine the rights of children that can be upheld (Gonzalez et al., 2016; Smetana et al., 2014). Chiu and Charnley (2019) found that while the survival needs of children in residential care were fulfilled, adults tended not to listen to them. Autonomy may be a growing international trend, but legal, ethical and cultural values limit children’s autonomy and participation when children’s best interests are considered (Sabatello et al., 2018; Van Bijleveld et al., 2015). Thus, examining adults’ perceptions of children’s rights is important.

Social workers are engaged in the promotion and advocacy of children’s rights through education, policy initiatives and/or welfare services (Barnes, 2012). A review of the existing literature shows that little research has been conducted on Taiwanese social workers’ perceptions of children’s rights or even on human rights as a whole (Chen and Tang, 2019). The aim of this study was to investigate social workers’ perspectives on children’s rights, as well as the role of children’s rights in their daily practice. The research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: Are social workers in Taiwan familiar with children’s rights?

Research Question 2: What are the obstacles to the application of children’s rights in social work practice in Taiwan?

Research Question 3: What is the most important ethical principle when working with children?

Research Question 4: What should be highlighted in social work education with respect to children’s rights?

The outline of this article is as follows. We first examine the challenges encountered in implementing children’s rights in social work practice in Taiwan. We then describe how children’s rights discourse influences child protection policies in Taiwan. Data were collected from interviews with 94 social workers. From analysis of the data, we present the perspectives of social workers on children’s rights in their daily practice. Key issues were also identified, particularly in light of the conflict between the right to protection and the right to involvement in decision making in social work practice.

Challenges encountered in implementing children’s rights in social work practice in Taiwan

The implementation of children’s rights across different aspects of life depends on how children are perceived by adults. For example, child protection laws tend to perceive children as vulnerable and powerless, that is, requiring protection (Feng et al., 2012). Although parents in Taiwan often view the hitting of children to be an extension of their legitimate disciplinary rights (Feng et al., 2012; Lin and Lee, 2016), this is considered maltreatment and is punishable by law (Chou et al., 2011; Lin and Lee, 2016).

Social work is a culturally bound practice that is influenced by local beliefs (Yeung et al., 2010). Confucian culture, which emphasises collectivism rather than individuality and responsibility rather than rights (Hwang, 2001), still wields great influence in the field of social work in Taiwan. In societies with a strong paternalistic ideology, decisions that affect a child are often made by proxy, in the name of the child’s best interests and with the intention of protecting the child from harm (Daniel and Ivatts, 1998). Adults frequently resort to the principle of ‘the best interest of the child’ in the course of their authoritative decision making to negate a child’s views. In a ‘family-centred’ concept, as opposed to a ‘child-centred’ concept, social workers place the family at the front and centre (Ponnert, 2016). It can be argued whether, ultimately, children or adults benefit from this best interest principle. Simply put, social workers relate children’s well-being to their parents’ attitudes or family situation.

Social workers are expected to follow relevant guidelines when serving needy children and their families. They not only advocate children’s rights through protection, provision and participation, but also help children to exercise agency. We should not assume that the topic of children’s rights has gone unacknowledged in social work practice. By examining care proceedings, Munro and Ward (2008) pointed out that balancing the needs and rights of parents and children in terms of admitting the need for care can be complex and competitive. If the concept of childhood is linked to child protection, as Petersen (2016) pointed out, determining ways to balance children’s or young people’s rights with protection and participation can be a complex issue in social work practice. Holland’s (2001) qualitative research on social workers’ assessments of child protection cases found that children only play a partial role in assessments, and social workers often ignore children’s viewpoints or choices in the process of decision making. Simply put, children’s participation is frequently less emphasised when children are considered at risk and protection is the focus (Kennan et al., 2016).

In order to apply the rights discourse to care, protection and participation, social workers must listen to children. Here, the concept of empowerment can be applied. Empowerment is the exercise of choice and control (Morris, 1997). An empowerment approach is considered an important organising framework for social work practice (Van Wormer, 2003). Empowering clients such as children and women through participation can help social workers understand their clients’ needs and encourage their self-expression (Serim, 2013). Empowering children to be rights holders is perceived as enhancing their autonomy. As such, it is necessary to provide children with sufficient information to evaluate their situation and choices.

The first challenge that social workers face in empowering children is whether they can ascertain children’s wishes and feelings. From interviews with 24 children, aged 6 to 17 years, on their views on participation in the child protection system, Cossar et al. (2016) found that trust between social workers and children is necessary for children to exercise their rights to participate and to express their views. Handley and Doyle (2014) explored 70 children’s social workers’ views on their skills in eliciting the wishes and feelings of children. They found that children as young as 4 years old were able to express their wishes and feelings. Conceptually, social workers involved in child protection processes or court proceedings are expected to possess sufficient communication skills and build trust with the children they serve.

It is important for social workers to gain knowledge and understanding of children’s rights (Campbell and Covell, 2001). In Taiwan, integrating rights into social work education poses serious challenges. He and Ku (2017) pointed out that social work education in Taiwan emphasises skills training rather than fundamental values of social work (e.g. anti-discrimination, social justice and human rights). Furthermore, a lack of indigenisation is a common critique of Taiwan’s social work educational programmes (Yu, 2013). Realising rights and rights-based attitudes should be a focus of social work education, continuing education courses and supervision. Children’s rights education can elevate consciousness of children’s rights and their violations, and lead to the incorporation of principles of children’s rights into social work practice.

The Taiwan example

The definition of a child reflects the particularities of the sociocultural contexts to which the child belongs (Jenks, 1996). Concepts of childhood and children take into account temporal and cultural specificity of ideas and social constructions (James and Prout, 1997: 218). There has been a persistent tendency to see children in Taiwan as vulnerable and requiring protection (Feng et al., 2012). The 1973 Child Welfare Act was the first social welfare measure in Taiwan (Hsu, 2016). The 1989 UNCRC resulted in the first amendment of the 1973 Child Welfare Act in 1993 (Shee, 1998). That amendment introduced the concept that children are not only raised under the purview of their parents. Rather, the state is to share in the social responsibility owed to children. When children are treated inappropriately by their family members, the state has the authority to intervene (Lin and Lee, 2016).

Between 1949 and 1987, rights recognition was hardly addressed in relevant social policies, and rights language was considered politically dangerous (Kagan, 1982: 49). Most political or civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution were restricted, as Taiwan was diplomatically isolated by the United States and the United Nations, and under martial law (Copper, 1990; Rigger, 1999). The lifting of martial law in 1987 had significant consequences on freedom of association, speech and the press, leading to tremendous social transformation, including social welfare movements (Rigger, 1999). As a result of its political status in the international community and the fact that the United Nations does not recognise Taiwan as a state, Taiwan was not able to sign or ratify the UNCRC (Chang, 2010). Nevertheless, over the last 30 years, the Taiwanese government has worked to translate the UNCRC into policies and services. For instance, the passage of the UNCRC in 1989 led to the amendment of the Child Welfare Law in 1993 and then to the passage of the Child and Youth Welfare Act 2003 (Hsu, 2016). Article 3 of the UNCRC forms the basis of Article 4 of the 1993 amendment to the Child Welfare Law, which states that the best interests of children should be the priority in child welfare cases (Global Legal Information Network Legislative Yuan, R.O.C., 2020). Article 27 of the same amendment, which corresponds to Article 14 of the Children and Youth Welfare Act 2003, stipulates that a child’s view should be respected when a child above the age of 7 is under consideration for adoption (mirroring UNCRC Article 12 and Article 21; Children’s Bureau Ministry of Interior, R.O.C., 2000).

In 2011, the Children and Youth Welfare Act was modified and amended as the Protection of Children and Youth Welfare and Rights Act (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China, 2020a). This marked the first time that rights terminology for children and youth was included in the title of an Act. Furthermore, the Enforcement Act of the UNCRC was passed in 2014 to incorporate the content of the UNCRC into Taiwanese law (Shee, 2019). Article 1 of the Implementation Act indicates that Taiwan recognises international standards for protecting and promoting children’s rights and has integrated existing legislation with provisions of the UNCRC (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China, 2020b).

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project on the rights of children to express their views in Taiwan. A qualitative study on parental perspectives on children’s rights was conducted, followed by a quantitative study of 200 social workers on their perceptions of the ideal age for children’s participation based on competence and decision making within different themes. A third study included interviews with 94 social workers. Due to limitations in the number of words, this article focuses only on the qualitative findings of those interviews.

A total of 94 social workers were invited to undergo in-depth interviews through purposive sampling. As the authors are social work teachers, they approached potential participants from among those who had graduated and become practising social workers. The snowball method was adopted to invite and interview colleagues of those who had participated in the study. A semi-standardised interview was adopted due to its flexibility and the freedom it allowed interviewers in order to make clarifications during the interview (Berg, 2004). Data were collected between November 2017 and August 2018. All participants were interviewed individually with the exception of three, who preferred to be interviewed as a group. The interviews lasted, on average, 30 to 40 minutes. This study was assessed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) affiliated with the hospital in which the authors work (Approval No. CS16079). The authors obtained informed consent from the participants verbally and in writing before the interviews were conducted. The authors kept the interviewees’ identities confidential.

After each interview, the entire conversation was transcribed for analysis. Thematic analysis was used to encode, classify and analyse the collected data. Specific concepts and themes emerged based on a review of relevant literature. For instance, interviewees’ responses to the question ‘What are the obstacles you encounter in applying children’s rights in practice?’ crossed multiple categories (such as age, competence, vulnerability and parents). Six interview transcripts were sent to the interviewees via email for their verification and confirmation. In the meantime, the authors completed line-by-line coding together. A consensus on the key themes was arrived at through discussion to enhance the reliability of the results (Leung, 2015).

Findings

Participants

Among the respondents, 83 identified as female, 10 as male and 1 as gender non-conforming. In addition, 43 were aged under 30 years, 49 between 30 and 39 years and 2 over 40 years. A total of 68 (72%) respondents had a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) or Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree and 17 (18%) had a Master’s degree, while 9 (10%) reported ‘other’ (implying that they were either still studying for a Master’s degree or had finished an accelerated programme). At the time of this study, 2 had worked for less than 1 year, 45 for less than 5 years, 33 for between 5 and 10 years and 14 for over 10 years. A total of 17 respondents worked as medical or mental health social workers, while 69 respondents worked with children, women and/or families (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample demographics.

Characteristics	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	10	11
Female	83	88
Other (e.g. gender variant/non-conforming)	1	1
Age (range)
<30 years	43	46
30–40 years	49	52
>40 years	2	2
Education
Bachelor’s	68	72
Master’s	17	18
Other	9	10
Years of experience (years)
<1	2	2
1–5	45	48
6–10	33	35
>10	14	15
Work field
Medical	17	18
Children and adolescents (including families and women)	69	74
Disabled	2	2
Other	6	6

Basic knowledge of children’s rights measures

The first findings presented here are from responses to the question: ‘Have you heard of the term “children’s rights”?’ Among the interviewees, only one indicated not having heard of the term. When the interviewees were asked to explain their understanding of children’s rights, most medical and children’s social workers touched upon broad categories such as the right to protection, education, life and expression.

The second question was as follows: ‘Are you aware of the UNCRC?’ One mental health and two medical social workers indicated that they had not heard of the UNCRC. One medical social worker clearly indicated that Taiwan had enacted legislation pertaining to the enforcement of the UNCRC in 2014, whereas the remaining interviewees only reported being familiar with the term but could not adequately explain its articles. When asked about their sources of information on the UNCRC, most interviewees reported having learned about it during pre-qualifying education, professional development programmes or government advocacy.

Obstacles to the application of children’s rights in practice

The interviewees indicated that applying children’s rights discourse to social work practice resulted in several dilemmas, for example the debate between prioritising child protection and encouraging their exercise of agency. Two social workers engaged in risk assessment said,

A mother threatened to kill herself together with her child. My colleague handled the emergency placement the night before. The next day, I went to transfer the child to another placement and the child insisted on returning home. She was only in the second grade. She shouted at me and said she did not need my help. I could sense her anger and fear.

The most difficult thing when it comes to working with children is when they are found to be in need of placement outside of their own homes for their safety, but they refuse to leave their families. I find it hard to ask such children to leave their families.

An adoption social worker also shared her dilemma of balancing the right to protection with the right of children to express their views:

A child who was aged three or four years was assessed as unlikely to return home. The best options available were to either find her care or to put her up for adoption. But the child told me that she really wanted to go back home. Arranging for her adoption was such a dilemma for me because it meant that her views were not going to be respected.

From the above comments, interviewees seemed to focus on protecting children from harm while adhering to professional guidelines. When at-risk children refuse to be taken to the local authority’s caregiving facilities for their own protection from neglect or abuse at home, a dilemma arises as to whether the child’s welfare or views must be respected. Meanwhile, the outcome of these dilemmas was that the interviewees were influenced by the children’s emotions, such as anger or fear, or their reluctance or willingness to reunite with their families.

A total of 24 interviewees pointed out that children’s age, maturity and competence pose a challenge to the quality of communication. For example, a medical worker said, ‘Some children are too young to make decisions. I have to evaluate the age of maturity, especially for children in elementary school’. The interviewees suggested that they were more likely to exhibit protectionist and paternalistic attitudes in consideration of a child’s vulnerability. A medical social worker noted, ‘I am a parent now. I begin to place my own role first when I work with children and then understand that they are just kids and that I just want to protect them. They are still immature’. A children’s social worker said, ‘Some children are physically and mentally dependent and cannot see or understand the long term. Most are preschool children’.

There is always conflict when it comes to the rights of different groups. The interviewees noted difficulties in balancing the rights of parents with those of children. A medical social worker described the challenge of taking children away from parents in a hospital emergency room when health professionals suspect parents of abuse:

When children are going to be taken into care for their protection, parents often say things like, ‘This is my child. How can you do this? It is I who brought him/her up’.

Similarly, in collective societies like Taiwan, a pregnant child may not be able to make a decision regarding whether to continue or abort a pregnancy. A children’s social worker shared her observation of an adolescent pregnancy:

Parents and children find it difficult to communicate in the context of unexpected adolescent pregnancies because parents do not take their children’s viewpoints into consideration.

Adolescent pregnancy is understood differently by individuals in different roles and positions in the family, society and culture. As parents are children’s legal guardians, they have the final say and do not deem it necessary to consult their children before making decisions concerning them.

Ethical principles: Respect and confidentiality

By identifying which ethical principle or value interviewees link with children, we can understand whether children’s characteristics, such as age, influence interviewees’ allocation of resources, rights or opportunities. Thus, the interviewees were asked to name the most important ethical principle when working with children within the framework of children’s rights implementation (e.g. respect, confidentiality, empathy, do no harm, informed consent and anti-oppression). Among the respondents, 44 mentioned respect. Three interviewees specifically highlighted the importance of respect for persons in the preservation of the inherent worth and dignity of children. They also described respect for persons as a means for children to feel that they are bearers of rights or independent individuals. A medical social worker noted, ‘If you cannot show children aged older than 10 or 11 respect, it is very difficult to communicate with them’. Another medical social worker said, ‘I believe that everyone is an independent individual’. A children’s social worker said, ‘Respect and empathy are very important so that children are not treated as objects but rather on an equal basis with adults’.

Confidentiality was the next most common ethical principle mentioned by our interviewees (n = 13). A medical social worker pointed out that confidentiality is important when establishing a professional relationship with children:

Children and teenagers ask me to keep what they share in confidence. ‘Can you please not reveal this information to my mom? Can you not talk about this to social workers in another welfare service?’ Personally, I know I have to pass on some information to other people on some occasions so that they can decide how to cope with the situation.

A children’s social worker shared a similar viewpoint:

[Respect for privacy and confidentiality] has nothing to do with age. It is whether one trusts the worker or not. So, she is willing to discuss something with you and share information with you that she would not share with others.

A worker described the necessity of explaining and discussing privacy and confidentiality with children in residential care:

The children I work with mostly have issues with personal safety. Children have to understand why they are placed in care outside their homes. I spend lots of time discussing arrangements for privacy and confidentiality with the children themselves.

Historically, social workers have been trained to maintain confidentiality. Although confidentiality and privacy are often seen as closely linked to basic human dignity and respect for personal autonomy, social workers must use professional and/or personal judgement to decide whether to violate confidentiality and what to disclose based on the benefit to the child. Paternalistic interference with children’s desire for confidentiality may lead to mistrust in professional relationships.

Knowledge of children’s rights should be prioritised in training

Based on obstacles and dilemmas encountered in applying children’s rights to social work practice, we asked interviewees to point out what needs to be highlighted in social work education with respect to children’s rights. Two interviewees working with children and women suggested offering more information about the UNCRC.

As many as 30 interviewees pointed out that learning more about rights in either professional educational or in-service training is important. A social worker who works with children and women said, ‘We social workers have to learn how to adopt and apply rights concepts in practice. If we do so, we can work better with our clients’.

A children’s social worker noted, ‘If children’s rights and related concepts can be learned and emphasised as vital knowledge in school, they can be applied as guidelines in practice’.

As many as 14 interviewees highlighted communication skills as vital in advocacy of children as right holders, especially for those who work with children and parents. A medical social worker noted, ‘If someone plans to work with children, it is important for them to learn how to develop trusting relationships with children and to work with them’.

A family social worker said,

It is important to improve skills necessary for working with parents rather than with children because children hardly have any power of their own. Their situations can be improved if their parents’ situations are altered.

Two interviewees emphasised the importance of developing sensitivity and awareness in the course of social work education. A children’s social worker observed,

I feel that it is necessary to deepen the discussion on many topics pertaining to how Taiwan’s local culture and children’s rights are intertwined . . ., such as social or family culture.

A social worker who works with female marriage-based immigrants noted, ‘Social work students can be equipped with training on multiculturalism and respect, as well as on stereotyping and/or discrimination’.

Discussion

Social workers should pay attention to human rights, including children’s rights. This is not easy because, in addition to managing complexities and children’s vulnerabilities, social workers need to be equipped with experience and perspectives on how to implement rights in practice. The interviewees in this study described the interplay between children’s rights and their work experience.

First, most interviewees were familiar with children’s rights terminology. This may be due to the global and increasing local discourse on children’s rights. Access to rights-based documents during education and training may serve to enhance awareness of rights among social workers. Meanwhile, practical engagement with or knowledge of laws can enhance the impact of their work on the ground.

Second, there were obstacles to the application of children’s rights to social work practice. Young children unable to provide quality communication was the factor that affected the willingness of social workers to discuss important issues with them. The interviewees noted that children of preschool and elementary school ages were most likely to have a minimal understanding of the information that social workers provided them. The interviewees also indicated that in balancing the right to protection with the right to have their views respected, the emotional reactions of children, especially anger and sadness, were impactful.

Third, social work is guided by a code of ethics that includes values and principles for working with children and families. We asked our interviewees what they considered to be the most important ethical principle in working with children and parents. Interviewees most commonly reported respect and confidentiality. Unfair treatment can stem from unjust social structures, processes and practices. Children are often not considered independent. Social workers play a significant role in promoting the awareness of children’s powerlessness and personal empowerment (Turner and Maschi, 2015). The interviewees were able to demonstrate sufficient professional competence in describing the unfair treatment meted out to children in the social structure of Taiwan, and to engage with the issue while remaining sensitive to the power differential between children and their parents. This study responded to the calls for further research by Cossar et al. (2016) and Heimer et al. (2018), suggesting that trust between social work professionals and children is significant, especially in the process of defining professional interventions for at-risk families.

Social workers must decide whether children at risk should remain with their family or be removed from the home. Our findings were consistent with those of Feng et al. (2012), who noted that professionals (e.g. social workers, physicians, nurses and teachers) have to take both parental needs and care for a vulnerable child into consideration. Based on the powerlessness and vulnerability of children, social workers recognised that children’s rights and autonomy can be replaced or interfered with by parents in the name of protecting them from harm and preserving family privacy. Simply put, by respecting children’s views and determining their best interests, the welfare of the family as a whole can influence the judgement of social work professionals.

According to the interviewees, parents are often reluctant to accept their children’s unexpected pregnancies. Adolescent pregnancy is considered shameful and is stigmatised in Taiwan. Within the cultural framework of socialisation in Taiwan, children are overprotected, and development of their autonomy is often undermined by parental authority. As an adolescent pregnancy may bring shame to the family, parents may pursue the termination of such a pregnancy without respecting their child’s reproductive rights. Parental perspectives on children’s rights with respect to sexual and reproductive health rights were investigated by the authors in an earlier study (Tang and Chen, 2018). A mother refused to accept her 15-year-old daughter’s unintended pregnancy, referring to it as ‘something’ and insisted on taking her daughter to a hospital for a safe termination of the pregnancy. Subsequently, the daughter’s independent mobility was restricted. If social workers are to be perceived as assisting children with forming and expressing their viewpoints, they must play the role of parens patriae (parent/guardian of the nation) to strike a balance among parents’ rights, family support needs and children’s autonomy in Taiwan’s patriarchal society. In order to encourage children to believe in and exercise power over their lives, social workers should equip them with information that they can comprehend and use. Training and skills development programmes focused on communication with parents and children, especially younger children, and on understanding their feelings, are necessary for social workers.

Finally, if social workers do not have an understanding of children’s rights, their implementation of children’s rights in social work practice may be hampered. Scholars believe that human rights education is a necessary component of social work training (Reichert, 2007; Rozas and Garran, 2016). If children’s rights are to be taken seriously, social work educators and supervisors have the responsibility to help social workers on the front lines to think, analyse and internalise core human rights principles. Case conferences and dialogical learning during supervision can also help to develop awareness of the powerlessness experienced by children in society. International scholarship on the UNCRC and children’s rights provides a framework for social work practice (Richards-Schuster and Pritzker, 2015).

Conclusion

Through a qualitative study, the authors aimed to present the perspectives of social workers on children’s rights in Taiwan. Several conclusions can be drawn from the results. Social workers were familiar with children’s rights terminology and had functional knowledge of the subject. However, considerably more must be done to integrate children’s rights into practice, policy and education. Second, children’s rights, especially the right to have their views respected, can be undermined in the name of pursuing their best interests and protecting them from harm. In reality, popular sentiments regarding age, competence or vulnerability may undermine children’s rights (Freeman, 2009). By resolving obstacles or ethical dilemmas in practice, shared decision making among children, parents and social workers may be adopted. Finally, professional competent practice requires knowledge, skills and awareness. If social workers are aware of children’s status in Taiwanese culture, they may pay more attention to it in practice. We believe that this study contributes significantly to the literature as it emphasises the need for social workers in the field to build their capacity to reconcile parental views on children’s interests with their appropriation of the agency of children in the name of their interests and greater needs. Furthermore, we believe that the results of this study encourage exploration of the current state of practice and offer a deeper and more detailed basis for the development of robust sensitisation strategies for social workers to implement on the ground.

This study has some limitations. First, the sample size does not allow for the generalisation of all social workers’ perspectives on children’s rights in Taiwan. Furthermore, the use of qualitative interviewing produces results that cannot be compared to data drawn from quantitative methods. Finally, the children themselves were not studied. By considering children as active agents, child-centred research may build a better understanding of children’s rights in social work practice.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Part of this article was accepted for oral presentation in European Conference for Social Work Research, 2019, held in Leuven, Belgium.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Hsin-Yi Chen has received research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, R.O.C. (grant number MOST 106-2410-H-040-009) and Dr I-Chen Tang has also received research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, R.O.C. (grant number MOST 105-2410-H-040-006-MY2).

Author biographies

Hsin-Yi Chen is an associate professor at Department of Medical Sociology and Social Work, Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan. She teaches on a range of courses addressing disability, health and social care. Her research interests focus on human rights, disability and anti-oppressive practice.

I-Chen Tang is a professor at Department of Medical Sociology and Social Work, Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan. She has special interests in social work and human rights, gender and disability. Issues of social justice are also of interest to her.

References

Barnes

(2012) ‘Social Work and Advocacy with Young People: Rights and Care in Practice’, British Journal of Social Work 42(7): 1275–92.

Berg

B.L.

(2004) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Pearson.

Campbell

K.M.

Covell

(2001) ‘Children’s Rights Education at the University Level: An Effective Means of Promoting Rights Knowledge and Rights-Based Attitudes’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights 9: 123–35.

Chang

W.C.

(2010) ‘The Convergence of Constitutions and International Human Rights: Taiwan and South Korea in Comparison’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 36: 593–624.

Chen

H.Y.

Tang

I.C.

(2019) ‘Social Worker’s Attitudes toward Human Rights in a Sample from Taiwan’, International Social Work 62(1): 295–308.

Children’s Bureau Ministry of Interior, R.O.C. (2000) Child Welfare Law. Taichung: Children’s Bureau Ministry of Interior, R.O.C.

Chiu

W.Y.

Charnley

(2019) ‘Children’s Rights and Residential Care in Taiwan: An Exploration of the Tensions between Global Standards and Culturally Situated Practices’, International Social Work. Epub ahead of print 15 April. DOI: 10.1177/0020872819833429.

Chou

C.Y.

Y.J.

H.M.

Chen

S.H.

(2011) ‘Child Physical Abuse and Related PTSD in Taiwan: The Role of Chinese Cultural Background and Victims’ Subjective Reactions’, Child Abuse and Neglect 35: 58–68.

Copper

J.F.

(1990) Taiwan: Nation-State or Province? London: Westview Press.

10.

Cossar

Brandon

Jordan

(2016) ‘“You’ve Got to Trust Her and She’s Got to Trust You”: Children’s Views on Participation in the Child Protection System’, Child and Family Social Work 21(1): 103–12.

11.

Daniel

Ivatts

(1998) Children and Social Policy. London: Macmillan.

12.

Feng

J.Y.

Chen

Y.W.

Fetzer

Feng

M.C.

Lin

C.L.

(2012) ‘Ethical and Legal Challenges of Mandated Child Abuse Reporters’, Child and Youth Services Review 34: 276–80.

13.

Freeman

(2009) ‘Children’s Rights as Human Rights: Reading the UNCRC’, in Qvortrup

Corsaro

W.A.

Honig

M.S.

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies, pp. 377–93. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Global Legal Information Network Legislative Yuan, R.O.C. (2020) ‘Amendment of Child Welfare Law’. Available online at: https://glin.ly.gov.tw/web/nationalLegal.do?isChinese=false&method=legalSummary&fromWhere=legalAnnounce&id=2629 (accessed 20 February 2020).

15.

Gonzalez

K.W.

Adibe

O.O.

Dalton

B.G.

Desai

A.A.

Sharp

S.W.

Peter

S.D.S.

(2016) ‘Understanding Parental Refusal of Permission for Child Participation in Surgical Prospective Trials’, Pediatric Surgery International 32(5): 505–508.

16.

Handley

Doyle

(2014) ‘Ascertaining the Wishes and Feelings of Young Children: Social Workers’ Perspectives on Skills and Training’, Child and Family Social Work 19: 443–54.

17.

Z.F.

Y.W.

(2017) ‘Globalization and Social Work in Taiwan: Toward a Read Professionalization’, NPUST Humanities and Social Sciences Research: Pedagogy 11(1): 1–18 (in Chinese).

18.

Heimer

Palme

(2016) ‘Rethinking Child Policy Post-UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Vulnerable Children’s Welfare in Sweden’, Journal of Social Policy 45(3): 435–52.

19.

Heimer

Näsman

Palme

(2018) ‘Vulnerable Children’s Rights to Participation, Protection, and Provision: The Process of Defining the Problem in Swedish Child and Family Welfare’, Child & Family Social Work 23: 316–23.

20.

Holland

(2001) ‘Representing Children in Child Protection Assessments’, Childhood 8(3): 322–39.

21.

Hsu

C.C.

(2016) ‘A Study of Non-Government Child Welfare Services in Taiwan Focused on Children in Need of Child Welfare Service Intervention’, PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

22.

Hwang

K.K.

(2001) ‘Introducing Human Rights Education in the Confucian Society of Taiwan: Its Implications for Ethical Leadership in Education’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 4(4): 321–32.

23.

James

Prout

(1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer.

24.

Jarosz

(2016) ‘Empowering Social Position of Children through Participation – Reading Out Korczak’s Roots and Going Beyond’, Journal of Gender and Power 5(1): 119–29.

25.

Jenks

(1996) Childhood. Abingdon: Routledge.

26.

Kagan

R.C.

(1982) ‘Martial Law in Taiwan’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 14(3): 48–54.

27.

Kennan

Brady

Forkan

(2016) Children’s Participation: A Systematic Literature Review Exploring the Effectiveness of Structures and Procedures Intended to Support Children’s Participation in Child Welfare, Child Protection and Alternative Care Services. Galway: UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre (UCFRC), The National University of Ireland.

28.

Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (2020a) ‘The Protection of Children and Youth Welfare and Rights Act’. Available online at: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050001 (accessed 20 February 2020).

29.

Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (2020b) ‘Implementation Act of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’. Available online at: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050193 (accessed 20 February 2020).

30.

Leung

(2015) ‘Validity, Reliability and Generalizability in Qualitative Research’, Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4(3): 324–7.

31.

Lin

C.H.

Lee

M.J.

(2016) ‘A Comparative Policy Analysis of Family Preservation Programs in the US and in Taiwan’, Journal of Child and Family Studies 25(4): 1131–44.

32.

Morris

(1997) ‘Care or Empowerment? A Disability Rights Perspective’, Social Policy & Administration 31(1): 54–60.

33.

Munro

E.R.

Ward

(2008) ‘Balancing Parents’ and Very Young Children’s Rights in Care Proceedings: Decision-Making in the Context of the Human Rights Act 1998’, Child & Family Social Work 13(2): 227–34.

34.

Petersen

(2016) ‘Children’s Participation in Decision Making in Social Work’, Research Children’s Perspectives When Norms and Values Are in Conflict Conference Proceedings (eds Rasmusson

Svensson

), 12–13 October, pp. 65–7. Lund: Lund University.

35.

Ponnert

(2016) ‘Article 3 and Article 12 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Some Dilemmas and Controversies in Swedish Practice’, Research Children’s Perspectives When Norms and Values Are in Conflict Conference Proceedings (eds Rasmusson

Svensson

), 12–13 October, pp. 68–73. Lund: Lund University.

36.

Reichert

(2007) ‘Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century: Creating a New Paradigm for Social Work’, in Reichert

(ed.) Challenges in Human Rights: A Social Work Perspective, pp. 1–15. New York: Columbia University Press.

37.

Richards-Schuster

Pritzker

(2015) ‘Strengthening Youth Participation in Civic Engagement: Applying the Convention on the Rights of the Child to Social Work Practice’, Child and Youth Services Review 57: 90–97.

38.

Rigger

(1999) Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.

39.

Rozas

L.W.

Garran

A.M.

(2016) ‘Towards a Human Rights Culture in Social Work Education’, British Journal of Social Work 46: 890–905.

40.

Sabatello

Janvier

Verhagen

Morrison

Lantos

(2018) ‘Pediatric Participation in Medical Decision Making: Optimized or Personalized?’, The American Journal of Bioethics 18(3): 1–3.

41.

Serim

(2013) ‘Client Voice and Expertise in Promoting Social Justice’, in Austin

M.J.

(ed.) Social Justice and Social Work, pp. 309–23. London: SAGE.

42.

Shee

A.H.L.

(1998) Legal Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation in Taiwan. Aldershot: Ashgate.

43.

Shee

A.H.L.

(2019) ‘Local Images of Global Child Rights: CRC in Taiwan’, in Cohen

J.A.

Alford

W.P.

C.F.

(eds) Taiwan and International Human Rights, pp. 625–42. Singapore: Springer.

44.

Smetana

J.G.

Wong

Ball

Yau

(2014) ‘American and Chinese Children’s Evaluations of Personal Domain Events and Resistance to Parental Authority’, Child Development 85(2): 626–42.

45.

Tang

I.C.

Chen

H.Y.

(2018) ‘Case Study of Parental Storytelling about Underage Daughter’s Pregnancy and Abortion in Taiwan’, Storytelling Conference 2018,10–11 July, University of Suffolk, Ipswich.

46.

Tisdall

E.K.M.

(2015) ‘Children’s Rights and Children’s Well-Being: Equivalent Policy Concepts?’, Journal of Social Policy 44(4): 807–23.

47.

Turner

S.G.

Maschi

T.M.

(2015) ‘Feminist and Empowerment Theory and Social Work Practice’, Journal of Social Work Practice 29(2): 151–62.

48.

Van Bijleveld

G.G.

Dedding

C.W.M.

Bunders-Aelen

J.F.G.

(2015) ‘Children’s and Young People’s Participation within Child Welfare and Child Protection Services: A State-of-the-Art Review’, Child and Family Social Work 20: 129–38.

49.

Van Wormer

. (2003) ‘Restorative Justice: A Model for Social Work Practice with Families’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 84(3): 441–8.

50.

Yeung

S.S.

P.Y.

C.H.

Chan

E.A.

(2010) ‘Social Work Ethical Decision Making in an Inter-disciplinary Context’, British Journal of Social Work 40: 1573–90.

51.

H.Y.

(2013) ‘Reflection on Social Work Education: Commitment or Betrayal of a Trust?’, Taiwan United Way Review 2(1): 1–18.